if the u.s. attorney's office sees those initial e-mails and said this doesn't rise to the threshold of a criminal violation, if you identify the person, we don't think it's enough to even prosecute that person, that would be the end of the case. the fbi would not continue the case. it never would have gotten to director petraeus. >> see, what the fbi, the fbi got authority under the current foreign intelligence surveillance act, to issue national security letters so they can do that inside the fbi without going to a u.s. attorney. my point is there may have been a predicate here, but it's not clear that there was. if the fbi is going to investigate every harassment case, because it's on the internet, they're going to be shut for business and not be able to do anything else, right? so you make judgments about when is there a predicate and is this a priority. that's not clear until you trace this for awhile and get to petraeus, and the question i'm raising is why, what was the predicate, why did t